Musings and Sometimes Rants about the non-equal status of Fathers in Family Law and Parenting. Additionally periodic comparisons to the treatment of men compared to women in other areas including health care.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Family-law makeover ~ California

I wish Michael Newdow well with his law suit. The reason it is necessary is to give these legislators a wake up call. One wants to ban Parental Alienation Syndrome from courts even though it passes all North American scientific tests for evidence in courts. He is a stooge for Victim Feminists and these so called protective parents who are a front for victim feminists. They clearly indicate their lack of truthfulness in this article by denying Domestic Violence initiation is equal between both genders. In one CDC study it was found 71% of initiators were women.

They have an agenda and it is to ensure the current inequality carries on whereby judges currently award custody in the vast majority of cases to moms marginalizing dads to 4 day a month visitors. A parental bond is impossible to maintain with 14% visitation.

It is pretty clear they have Jim Beall in their back pocket. Parental Alienation is largely used by a custodial parent to teach children to hate the non-custodial parent. This pretty much guarantees them custody and if a child was brought into the dispute to choose - guess who they would pick. Beall is a very misdirected man who represents a clear danger to dads. His campaign finances should be investigated to see who may be providing undue influence.MJM

Michael Newdow is no stranger to controversy. First, in 2000, he filed a lawsuit against the Elk Grove Unified School District in an attempt to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, arguing that the phrase “under God” was an endorsement of religion. Then, in 2006, he attempted to have “In God We Trust” removed from U.S. currency. At the end of 2008, Newdow filed a suit to keep Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. from uttering “so help me God” at the conclusion of President Barack Obama’s inaugural oath.

For various reasons, all three lawsuits were dismissed. But that hasn’t kept him from focusing on a new target: the family-law system.

“The entire family-law system is unconstitutional,” Newdow told SN&R. “It deprives people of their rights to their relationships with their children.”

In 2005, 2006 and 2007 Newdow informed the speaker of the Assembly of his intent to file suit under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526(a), which allows taxpayers to file grievances against government waste.

“You waste incredible amounts of money,” said Newdow. “People spend millions of dollars—literally—on individual cases that should be going towards the family.”

But when Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s office responded to his notice, suggesting that Newdow send his complaint to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he decided to hold off. In the meantime, he’s looking for additional plaintiffs.

“Maybe I’ll file it anyway,” Newdow said. “I doubt the Legislature will do what I want.”

Newdow believes that pitting two parents against each other from the outset of custody cases just sets the stage for trouble.

“My argument is that that’s why we have custody battles and custody wars, because we set things up to be that way,” he said.

Like Newdow’s previous cases, the chance that he could revamp the family-court system by way of a taxpayer complaint is a long shot. But reform is needed; ask just about anyone who’s trudged through the legal muck of child-custody disputes, and you’re certain to hear a horror story.

Connie Valentine is a founding member and current policy director of the Sacramento-based California Protective Parents Association. CPPA was formed 10 years ago partly to deal with what she calls abuses in the family-court system. In those 10 years, Valentine’s organization has assisted with thousands of cases. She said that the biggest problem in family-law court is a lack of oversight.

“When there’s no effective oversight, things fester and abuse of power can occur without any ability to change it,” she said. “The reason that there is no effective oversight is that most of the people who are involved in family court do not have lawyers. And if you do not have a lawyer, that means you don’t have money.”

Having no money in the family-court system, explained Valentine, means you can’t file costly appeals to challenge court rulings.

Valentine said that a second pressing problem is the unregulated cottage industry of mediators and other professionals who hold enormous sway over court rulings.

“The court has, in good faith, decided that they need assistance,” Valentine noted. “One judge is not enough to handle all the problems that they’re seeing.” The solution has been to hire mediators that hear cases and make recommendations to the court. “Now if it’s a good mediator, that may not be such a bad thing if they’re balanced and unbiased,” she continued. “But if you happen to have a bad mediator who’s biased and decides they like one person over the other—because of their looks or their gender or their persuasiveness—then you’ve got big problems, because the judges rely tremendously on their mediators.”

Another problem, said Valentine, is that children often don’t have a direct say in custody cases. Instead, attorneys report on behalf of minors. Oftentimes what the attorneys report conflicts with what the children themselves say. The solution is to let children speak directly with the judge.

“A 4-year-old in criminal court can testify against their abusers,” Valentine said. “We can certainly take children and talk to them in family court.”

Family-law attorney Barbara Kauffman feels another problem is a lack of uniform training in domestic-violence and child-abuse issues among judges and court appointees. “There are theories being taught that are all over the map,” she said.

Kauffman recounted one instance where she sat in on a training session taught by a fathers’ rights advocate. Judges and mediators were in attendance. “He was spouting off about how most domestic violence is mutual. And [the judges and mediators] were just sitting there raptly listening to this.”

Efforts are underway to fix these and many other problems.

State Sen. Mark Leno has asked the Legislature’s Joint Legal Audit Committee to investigate Sacramento and several other counties’ family courts. The audit will look at, among other things, the criteria used to assign mediators to cases.

Assembly Bill 612, sponsored by Jim Beall, would eliminate the use of controversial theories—namely Parental Alienation Syndrome—from family-court proceedings. Adherents of PAS argue that one parent alienates their child against the other. PAS opponents argue the theory is unscientific and is often used to place children into the hands of abusers.

A.B. 375 would prohibit courts from using last-minute ex parte hearings to determine child custody, except in cases where the child is in immediate danger.

A.B. 1050 “would require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation.”

Of course, reforming the system itself isn’t the only problem. As Kauffman, puts it, “In family law, everybody’s on their worst behavior. There is an incentive to lie about finances, about children.”

With attorneys, mediators and child psychologists collectively raking in millions of dollars in fees for their services, there’s an invested interest in making custody cases as nasty as possible.

Newdow’s case, even if it seems far-fetched, may simply be effective in the way it calls attention to a broken court system.

“The things that happen to these people are absolutely horrific, but it’s such a typical thing. That’s what’s so amazing,” said Newdow.

At stake here is more than just winning legal battles.

“Every parent, if you gave them the choice of being paraded around naked on a leash or losing their right to be a parent to their kid, all of [them] would say, ‘Hey, take my clothes off right now,’” said Newdow.

Comments:

Follow up by Mike Murphy on June 26, 2009

Posted 06/25/2009 12:26PM by BKLAW: You are a lawyer and know full well PAS has passed both the Frye and Mohan tests for scientific veracity in North American courts. In Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002. * Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt]

There are many more in the USA and dozens in Canada that passed the Mohan Test which states "Expert evidence must be necessary in order to allow the fact finder: (1) to appropriate the facts due to their technical nature, or; (2) to for a correct judgment on a matter if ordinary persons are unlikely to do so without the assistance of persons with special knowledge."

R. v. Mohan [2 S.C.R. 9] 1994Admission of expert evidence depends on the application of the following criteria:

* relevance;* necessity in assisting the trier of fact;* the absence of any exclusionary rule;* a properly qualified expert

It is true both genders alienate children but most studies show about a 2-1 ratio tipping toward mothers. As it is largely a function of custodial parents and mothers are by far the custodial parent, this makes both scientific and logical sense. Feminists, if you care to read their blogs, do not believe in PAS at all and are particularly loud when a mother loses custody due to her abuse of children. Many of your feminist colleagues in law schools call it junk science. Those of us who are targets will clearly tell you it is not. You also don't have to be a rocket scientist to discern the difference between real abuse and PA. If a child has a realistic estrangement from a parent through abuse this can be determined by intelligent questioning. Even abused children want a relationship with their parents and often wonder why this parent strikes them. They sometimes develop a "pleasing" response to it and will do most anything to stay in the good graces of the abuser. Not so with PAS.

What I haven't heard from anyone is a legal presumption of shared and equal parenting with co-residency of the children. If you want to reduce divorce, increase positive social outcomes for children, get rid of wasteful tax funded collection agencies for support and save taxes, enact this legislation. Where does your so called protective parent organization stand on this? They are against it for the same reasons they deny PAS exists. It will give dads equality and they will lose their entitlements.

@Posted 06/25/2009 5:51PM by tloffYou need to do more research as you are just plain wrong with respect to the science. Since when did Wikepedia pass legal tests for validity. See above for the real tests. An alienator is not a loving parent. They have lost impulse control and let their hate for their ex over ride their love of a child. There is no such thing as deprogramming. Read the literature. In most cases the alienating parent, male or female has one or more serious personality disorders.

Posted 06/25/2009 7:11AM by MikeMurphy

I wish Michael Newdow well with his law suit. The reason it is necessary is to give these legislators a wake up call. One wants to ban Parental Alienation Syndrome from courts even though it passes all North American scientific tests for evidence in courts. He is a stooge for Victim Feminists and these so called protective parents who are a front for victim feminists. They clearly indicate their lack of truthfulness in this article... MORE

I wish Michael Newdow well with his law suit. The reason it is necessary is to give these legislators a wake up call. One wants to ban Parental Alienation Syndrome from courts even though it passes all North American scientific tests for evidence in courts. He is a stooge for Victim Feminists and these so called protective parents who are a front for victim feminists. They clearly indicate their lack of truthfulness in this article by denying Domestic Violence initiation is equal between both genders. In one CDC study it was found 71% of initiators were women. They have an agenda and it is to ensure the current inequality carries on whereby judges currently award custody in the vast majority of cases to moms marginalizing dads to 4 day a month visitors. A parental bond is impossible to maintain with 14% visitation. It is pretty clear they have Jim Beall in their back pocket. Parental Alienation is largely used by a custodial parent to teach children to hate the non-custodial parent. This pretty much guarantees them custody and if a child was brought into the dispute to choose - guess who they would pick. Beall is a very misdirected man who represents a clear danger to dads. His campaign finances should be investigated to see who may be providing undue influence. LESS

Posted 06/25/2009 9:10AM by RobertGartner

I wish Michael Newdow well too and for the same reasons as mentioned by Mr. Murphy above. Parental Alienation is real and is actually facilitated by lengthy court involvements. Children bond to their abusers; hence their input may be flawed. Courts certainly need reform but not for the reasons the victim feminists would have you believe. Men are not the only perpetrators of child abuse as they would have everyone believe. Domestic violence does run... MORE

I wish Michael Newdow well too and for the same reasons as mentioned by Mr. Murphy above. Parental Alienation is real and is actually facilitated by lengthy court involvements. Children bond to their abusers; hence their input may be flawed. Courts certainly need reform but not for the reasons the victim feminists would have you believe. Men are not the only perpetrators of child abuse as they would have everyone believe. Domestic violence does run equally and to attach gender to these matters just confuses them. Resolving custody issues should begin with removing bias and myth. For too long fathers have been treated as less than able to care for and love their child. A child needs each and both parents and on an equal basis. LESS

Posted 06/25/2009 12:26PM by BKLAW

I think Mr. Murphy and Mr. Gartner are making erroneous assumptions about PAS – about its validity as scientific evidence, and about their apparent conclusion that only mothers or “feminists” object to the use of PAS in child custody cases. The American Prosecutor’s Research Institute has long been critical of PAS–check out the following link: http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html I represent both fathers and mothers, and “PAS” is used against both. In fact, the clearest “PAS” language I... MORE

I think Mr. Murphy and Mr. Gartner are making erroneous assumptions about PAS – about its validity as scientific evidence, and about their apparent conclusion that only mothers or “feminists” object to the use of PAS in child custody cases. The American Prosecutor’s Research Institute has long been critical of PAS–check out the following link: http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html I represent both fathers and mothers, and “PAS” is used against both. In fact, the clearest “PAS” language I have encountered was this (in general substance): “If the child returns from a visit with his father, and is disrespectful to his mother, this will be taken as evidence that the father is alienating the child” Or, another common PAS concept is something like this: “If the child resists going on visits with the father, this is evidence that the mother is alienating the child against the father.” Obviously, there are many, many reasons a child may be disrespectful to a mother, and there are many, many reasons a child may resist going on visits with a father. Old-school PAS is a dangerously simplistic and convenient non-scientific theoretical concoction that can be used in ANY case against EITHER parent–and parents routinely lose custody, and end up in supervised visits with their children, over this. Unfortunately, PAS is often used in domestic violence and abuse cases, to explain away a child’s antipathy to a genuinely abusive parent, and cause a protective parent to lose custody. With respect to the training of judges and mediators mentioned in this article, wherein the trainer told them that most domestic violence is “mutual"–the punchline is this: when asked, the trainer in question admitted that if a victim tries to move past an abuser to get away, or touches the abuser in any way – even defensively, to ward off blows–that is considered “mutual”. While this is patently ridiculous, the judges and mediators would not have known this had that question not been asked. That is why there must be mandatory, uniform, statewide training on domestic violence and child abuse, for judges and court appointees. The fact of the matter is, all around the state fathers and mothers, and fathers’ rights groups and mothers advocacy groups, are showing up to testify about the rampant problems in the family court system, and the fact that they are losing their children, while being bankrupted paying court appointees and professionals who feed on custody conflicts. Mothers and fathers need to unite in their demand for change. It will benefit everyone, especially the children. LESS

Posted 06/25/2009 5:51PM by tloff

I can’t thank you enough for this timely article. Parental Alienation Syndrome, promoted by the family court system, is not a recognized disorder by scientific and medical comunities because it “lacks validity and reliablity” (wikipedia.com). Furthermore pas deprograming techniques divide relationships rather than unite. It is in the best interest for the child when parents work together. Children want this! A close friend lost her eight year old daughter when she was labeled an alienator... MORE

I can’t thank you enough for this timely article. Parental Alienation Syndrome, promoted by the family court system, is not a recognized disorder by scientific and medical comunities because it “lacks validity and reliablity” (wikipedia.com). Furthermore pas deprograming techniques divide relationships rather than unite. It is in the best interest for the child when parents work together. Children want this! A close friend lost her eight year old daughter when she was labeled an alienator by a reunification therapist. She didn’t get to see, hear, or talk to her daughter for sixty days and thereafter allowed one hour visits once a week. Many parents would be angry if this happened to them. One hour once a week visit, how does this mantain the parental bond. Sounds like reversal alienation to me! Ripping a child out of a loving family enviornment with the family courts blessing is child abuse! Children should have the right to decide who they want to live with, and mental health professionals should be held accountable for peddling false information. LESS

Posted 06/26/2009 11:47AM by MikeMurphy

Posted 06/25/2009 12:26PM by BKLAW: You are a lawyer and know full well PAS has passed both the Frye and Lothan tests for scientific veracity in North American courts. In Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002. * Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt] There are many more in the... MORE

Posted 06/25/2009 12:26PM by BKLAW: You are a lawyer and know full well PAS has passed both the Frye and Mohan tests for scientific veracity in North American courts. In Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002. * Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt]

There are many more in the USA and dozens in Canada that passed the Mohan Test which states “Expert evidence must be necessary in order to allow the fact finder: (1) to appropriate the facts due to their technical nature, or; (2) to for a correct judgment on a matter if ordinary persons are unlikely to do so without the assistance of persons with special knowledge.” R. v. Mohan [2 S.C.R. 9] 1994; Admission of expert evidence depends on the application of the following criteria: relevance; necessity in assisting the trier of fact; the absence of any exclusionary rule; a properly qualified expert.

It is true both genders alienate children but most studies show about a 2-1 ratio tipping toward mothers. As it is largely a function of custodial parents and mothers are by far the custodial parent, this makes both scientific and logical sense. Feminists, if you care to read their blogs, do not believe in PAS at all and are particularly loud when a mother loses custody due to her abuse of children. Many of your feminist colleagues in law schools call it junk science. Those of us who are targets will clearly tell you it is not.

You also don’t have to be a rocket scientist to discern the difference between real abuse and PA. If a child has a realistic estrangement from a parent through abuse this can be determined by intelligent questioning. Even abused children want a relationship with their parents and often wonder why this parent strikes them. They sometimes develop a “pleasing” response to it and will do most anything to stay in the good graces of the abuser. Not so with PAS.

What I haven’t heard from anyone is a legal presumption of shared and equal parenting with co-residency of the children. If you want to reduce divorce, increase positive social outcomes for children, get rid of wasteful tax funded collection agencies for support and save taxes, enact this legislation. Where does your so called protective parent organization stand on this? They are against it for the same reasons they deny PAS exists. It will give dads equality and they will lose their entitlements. Posted 06/25/2009 5:51PM by tloff: You need to do more research as you are just plain wrong with respect to the science. Since when did Wikepedia pass legal tests for validity. See above for the real tests. An alienator is not a loving parent. They have lost impulse control and let their hate for their ex over ride their love of a child. There is no such thing as deprogramming. Read the literature. In most cases the alienating parent, male or female has one or more serious personality disorders. LESS

Posted 06/26/2009 7:00PM by tloff

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/leg.html “Justice for Children. (2001). Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice For Children in Linville v. Linville (PDF) . Brief filed by Justice for Children in a custody case heard by Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The brief provides a Frye-analysis asking whether evidence of PAS is reliable and relevant in child custody cases and discusses the lack of scientific support for PAS rendering it inadmissible under Frye.” Does this shed light on the frye test... MORE

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/leg.html “Justice for Children. (2001). Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice For Children in Linville v. Linville (PDF) . Brief filed by Justice for Children in a custody case heard by Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The brief provides a Frye-analysis asking whether evidence of PAS is reliable and relevant in child custody cases and discusses the lack of scientific support for PAS rendering it inadmissible under Frye.” Does this shed light on the frye test Mr. Murphy is talking about? Get your facts straight! Many experts in several different fields are speaking out against PAS because it is sometimes used to forcefully remove children from established loving supportive families, against the request and wishes of (sometimes) all family members, to the tragic detriment of an innocent and cheated child. Financial gain of the PAS advocate is obvious in some cases and an indescribable mind numbing shock to those aware of this injustice to children and families. These woefully inappropriate decisions, done in the name of PAS, are torture to innocent parents and children who understandably may lose faith in a previously trusted justice system. PAS injustices have spawned misery, heartache, fear, anger and a loss of faith in the current justice system. An honest and compehensive look into some of these cases will easily show the tragic results of misguided court decisions that families have been forced to abide by. Look at the case of Ali. This seems to me, an example of “Justice for Sale”. The father paid a naÃ¯ve and/or corrupt PAS author/advocate/therapist to submit a 20 page recommendation to a naÃ¯ve and/or corrupt evaluator, who makes the excepted recommendation to a naÃ¯ve and/or corrupt judge. The child has been forced live with a father who previously didn’t want o see her and didn’t want or request 100% custody. The child is only allowed to see her loving mother 1 hour a week â€“supervised. What’s especially troubling is that the PAS therapist has a bias as she is trying to sell her recently released book on PAS. This is so wrong, in so many ways. Hopefully the court will open its eyes soon and this and other family tragedies caused by misguide efforts will end. The child was taken away three months ago, no contact whatsoever for sixty days. Now, she can only see her daughter once a week for one hour. She must also pay to see her daughter as well. Ali divorced because her husband had a child by another woman. He now has 5 children, by 3 women. The father had nothing to do with the daughter for 2 whole years, only asked for 50% custody and now is not allowed to let the mother have any custody at all. This is ridiculous. If or when the general public becomes aware of this, there will be a strong backlash against a corrupt and broken system. She would at least like to have 50 % custody. Her daughter was well adjusted, full of life and energy, trusting, considerate and always thinking of others. I have a degree, and have worked with children in the field of child development for nearly twenty years. I know many experts in this field and others who strongly believe that PAS has been used wrongly for profit and has caused judicial embarrassment and tragedy. In Ali’s case the child is 8 years old. She wants and needs to be with her mother. These parents will never give up. Therapists, evaluators, mediators, judges and lawyers profit from their legal battle for justice to the shame of the system and pain of families. LESS

Posted 06/27/2009 9:07AM by MikeMurphy

Posted 06/26/2009 7:00PM by tloff I’m not certain what your point is. PAS passes the Frye test. There is no debate on it! In Canada it passes the Mohan test. Their is no debate on it. Who are these experts you claim cast doubt on it? Are they scientists or victim feminist supporters. Name names. Could it be the Victim Feminists in NOW or some of the female law professors so wrapped up in victim... MORE

Posted 06/26/2009 7:00PM by tloff I’m not certain what your point is. PAS passes the Frye test. There is no debate on it! In Canada it passes the Mohan test. Their is no debate on it. Who are these experts you claim cast doubt on it? Are they scientists or victim feminist supporters. Name names. Could it be the Victim Feminists in NOW or some of the female law professors so wrapped up in victim feminist ideology they cannot logically discern the real truth? They have a number of them, one in particular at Georgetown U, who have been discredited and debunked for arguing against PAS on PBS. Gee are they experts on PAS. Are they scientists.

The argument it is not Science is premised on it not being in the DSM. That is not a valid argument. If you recall homosexuality was in it as a syndrome but then removed. Was that good science to remove it? Was it good science to have it in there? It took Tourettes syndrome over 50 years to get in. Was it not a disorder before it appeared in the pages of this manual? If the courts, as you described, removed an abuser from a child good for them. It is done far too seldom. Was she one of the so called protective parents which is nothing but a front for abusers under the guise of protecting children. How many men are considered protective parents in this group? It sounds to me like, in the case you are discussing, all the right things were done.

Are you the abuser? If so you need help. Most PA abusers have personality disorders and cannot discriminate their feelings. Their hate for the ex is so distorted it out weighs the love for the child. It is tragic and shameful. If you are not the abuser in question you are not unlike the enablers of alcoholics. By denying it exists you are complicit in its impacts on children. You also get hung up on the word syndrome. This is not rocket science. When you denigrate the parent of a child teaching that child to hate it is wrong and you are playing with the mental health of that child. That is not a syndrome that is bad behaviour. Are you saying this does not exist or that there is nothing wrong with it?

You seem to lack a broad base of understanding with respect to what is appropriate to teach a child. Teaching hatred of 50% of their genetic heritage has nothing but negative outcomes. You are very naive and you need to do more research. LESS

About Me

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

Feminism On Trial Powered By Ringsurf

Counting 1 - 2 - 3

Leading causes of Injury to Women 2006

In 2006, unintentional falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injury among women of every age group, and rates generally increased with age. Women aged 65 years and older had the highest rate of injury due to unintentional falls (59.7 per 1,000 women), while slightly more than 19 per 1,000 women aged 18–34 and 35–44 years experienced fall-related injuries. Unintentional injuries sustained as motor vehicle occupants were the second leading cause of injury among 18- to 34-year-olds (18.7 per 1,000), while unintentional overexertion was the second leading cause of injury among women aged 35–44 and 45–64 years (13.7 and 9.3 per 1,000, respectively). Among women aged 65 years and older, being unintentionally struck by or against an object was the second leading cause of injury (5.7 per 1,000).

Injury related Emergency Department Visits

Unintentional and intentional injuries each represented a higher proportion of emergency department (ED) visits for men than women in 2005. Among women and men aged 18 years and older, unintentional injuries accounted for 19.9 and 27.5 percent of ED visits, respectively, while intentional injuries, or assault, represented 1.4 and 2.7 percent of visits, respectively. Among both women and men, unintentional injury accounted for a higher percentage of ED visits among those living in non-metropolitan areas, while adults living in metropolitan areas had a slightly higher percentage of ED visits due to intentional injury.